We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.

Hillary Clinton doesn’t have a message, she has ambition. Her obsession with becoming president has overshadowed any reason that anyone might have to vote for her. She offers no hope and less change. Her candidacy is historic… but only for her. There is no promise she can make that anyone will believe.

After having spent much of her life trying to become president, she will leave once again a failure.

I have two of those foreign-born, adopted from Romania. I make a sharp distinction between those and illegals. We essentially signed off contractually on the legal immigrants and don't have cause to complain. If we think 45M is too high a percentage, we can cut back going forward.

The illegal immigrants are just about 25% of that 45M. No one signed off on those.

As for climate models, they simply haven't worked. The theories about higher CO2 being a problem are plausible, but "more change than usual" just isn't happening. It has gotten warmer since the end of the Little Ice Age, as in After The Narrows, the river widened. These are the same tactics used by the anti-nuke, ZPG, and anti-GMO crowds: take a nightmare fantasy with the proper villains, then seek facts to support it.

Assistant Village Idiot: Ah, the graph. Yes, that was the heart of the article, wasn't it?

Indeed! It's at the top of the article, and is meant to represent the reliability of climate models in their entirety.

The discrepancy concerning the warming of the tropical mid-troposphere has been an active area of study in climate science, but you wouldn't know that from the article. Turns out that historical radiosonde measurements of the tropical mid-troposphere are scanty, while satellite measurements have known non-climatic biases. Studies have shown that the results are within the very wide error bars of the measurements, and that independent methodologies support tropical mid-tropospheric warming. See Allen & Sherwood, Warming maximum in the tropical upper troposphere deduced from thermal winds, Nature Geoscience 2008, as well as Sherwood & Nishant, Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUKv2), Environmental Research Letters 2015.

Nor does this single discrepancy call into question data from the many other sources concerning global warming.

The heart of the article was the accusation that there was a mathematical fudge factor for no reason. Everything else may be as you say. That is a sideshow. Your inability to back off even 1% destroys your credibility.

Assistant Village Idiot: The heart of the article was the accusation that there was a mathematical fudge factor for no reason.

The conflation is at the heart of the article.

QUOTE:

Model results were then compared with actual observations and were found to produce only about a third of the observed warming in the 20th century.

Meaning a third of the predicted tropical mid-tropospheric warming, not the overall temperature of the climate system. While the discrepancy concerning the tropical mid-troposphere is still under investigation, there is empirical evidence that the discrepancy is an observational artifact.

As for the summary of influences, many of these only affect the distribution of heat through the climate system, not the overall warming (e.g. ENSO). Other influences have no short term effect (e.g. Milankovich cycles), or are not consistent with the data (changes in solar irradiance).

Right. So colleges can remove whatever they like from education, and it will always come around just right in the end. It worked out great for all those Jewish authors in Europe in the 30's, didn't it?

The fact that boycotts or soft censorships often don't work, or even backfire, is not a reason to disregard them.

frankly, I'm not concerned about what these dumb as rocks kollege kids boycott or whine about. this is the normal rebel against everything phase of life, but instead of having something worthwhile to rebel against, social justice warriors are left with trigger warnings and mini-aggressions.

by age 28 or so, with rent/mortgage, job, family -- in other words, real life worries -- this obsession with political correctness will be dead.

moreover, no kollege kode will stop any kid from reading anything he or she wants to read, either in kollege or afterwards.

There was a time when a immigrant required a sponsor. We need to reinstate this retroactively. Anyone who has immigrated requires a sponsor. If the UN, the State Department or who ever authorized refugees than they are the defacto sponsors and I would require not just those departments but those individuals who signed off on it to pay the costs for life for these immigrants we didn't want and didn't need. As for the immigrants from South of the border either Mexico (or which ever country they belong to) pays for their needs here or we deduct it from their aid and assets. It makes no sense for citizens to pay for this. Ditto for the employers; you employ a illegal alien you pay a tax of $200 a day for each employee. You employ a H1B immigrant you pay $30,000 a year to the federal government to cover the external costs incurred by that decision. Every immigrant needs a sponsor or to be sent home.

We work with nine domestic agencies to resettle refugees in the U.S. These nine agencies have about 315 affiliates in about 180 communities throughout the United States. Each year, each of these nine agencies and any new agencies that would like to be considered for the program – it’s an open, competitive process – these agencies submit proposals describing their capacity to resettle refugees at each of these affiliates,

I got that you hate foreigners (who doesn't?), and if Congress had passed a law executing all of them, I'd lend you my rifle. but that's not how the game is played, and spreading disinformation is dishonest.

If you bothered to look into it you would discover that these agencies are paid handsomely to distribute tax revenues to these "refugees". We don't have any say in this program it is forced on us by the UN and our politicians who want to be able to attend the correct cocktail parties. We, the tax payers, pay for everything these refugees get including cars and college educations. And it never ends. There are refugees from the Vietnam war still getting $5000 a month in cash and benefits.

There is zero reason to bring them here, refugees, visa over stayers, illegals, H1b's and pregnant mothers who fly in to have their child be born as a citizen; ZERO reason for us to allow it.

you're spouting off about personal preferences, not the actual practice of refugee relief. and those preferences and errors make you look like an angry, petty dude.

you don't like the law, change it. stop whining.

and, I'm not trying to get under your skin, but I've successfully handled scores of H1Bs, EB-5s, VAWAS, T visas (human trafficking -- usually in the sex trade -- which I believe you'd find amusing) and refugee visas and asylum cases, most of the latter from our adventures in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. Giving refugee status to our defeated allies must a tough pill for you to swallow, for gods alone know what reason. in other words, everyone you hate. I guess because they're not WASPy enough.

if you point out specific examples of VN war refugees still getting $5k/month, I'll be happy to explain it to the readers of this thread.

My reasons are clear: We don't need more people. It is unfair and counterproductive to our own citizens to be selling off citizenships that the American taxpayer has to pay and pay for. If immigration of any kind is to be our policy than the decision should be up to the people not the UN or politicians.

We're at a point of diminishing returns. Every immigrant allowed in lowers the quality of life of everyone still here - more crowding, more traffic, denser living, lower teacher to pupil ratio, fewer tax benefits per American while we're borrowing 40% of the annual budget. So Donny basically loves foreigners and hates fellow citizens. That's his right but it's time to fight against him and his kind. Or settle 1k Muslims next to the "bear Jew" and then stand back and let him embrace it.

E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: